The Time Is Now

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Irene S. Rubin and M. Ernita Joaquin
November 22, 2024

We as a nation have just experienced an election which promises to change many public policies and seriously shake the foundations of our government. We can expect abrupt reversals of traditions of neutral bureaucracy and substitution of loyalty to the president for skill, experience and expertise.  Employees at all levels of government may be asked, or commanded, to do some things with which they disagree, that may be unethical, possibly even immoral, illegal or unconstitutional, that harm the public.  “I was simply carrying out orders” doesn’t compensate for the harm done. Now, before it happens, is the time to decide how you will respond if asked or ordered to do something you know to be unacceptable, possibly unforgivable.

We have choices for how to respond. Years ago, Albert Hirschman described the alternatives: exit, voice and loyalty. “Exit” means resigning, “Voice” means protest, and “Loyalty” means obeying orders. Many federal employees chose “exit” in 2017, after resisting political interference and attempts to undermine the merit system, agency missions, capacities and ties with Congress and core constituencies. In 2020, Richard Pilger, head of the DOJ’s Election Crimes Unit, stepped down to protest Attorney General William Barr’s approval of election inquiries before the election had concluded—a move seen as a violation of DOJ neutrality and step toward legitimizing the narrative that the election had been stolen.  The circulation of Pilger’s resignation letter combined exit and voice, a form of protest. There are many other examples of resignations in protest, some for disapproval of a particular policy, but the ones of interest here are those aimed at preserving the foundations of democracy.

Already, career attorneys are being told to leave the DOJ if they oppose the incoming president’s agenda, or face termination for their resistance. In other places, some are signaling that they will stay, insofar as the law allows, to fight for the independence of their mission. Worker protections put in place over the past four years might not be enough. Even as we celebrate “unsung heroes” in government for their exceptional service, 2025 will likely be darker and tougher for agencies, not only federal ones but also at the state and local governments, should obedience and loyalty become a test of service. 

Now is the time to ask ourselves: What does our oath to the Constitution and the rule of law truly mean? What do we hold to be right or wrong, not only legally but also morally? Everything we have taught, discussed or thought about administrative ethics comes to a head here: What would we be willing to do? What would we refuse to do if directed otherwise?

Financially, what preparatory steps should we take? For those considering the exit option, is nonprofit work possible? Teaching or consulting? Think tanks or advocacy work? Motivation for public sector work involves the desire to help people—are there other ways this can be accomplished outside of government? Is it time to retire? Is retirement a financially feasible option?

A report noted a number of federal employees moving to “safer agencies.” Should you stay to resist directives that harm the public interest? How might this be accomplished? In 2017, databases on environmental and regulatory programs started disappearing. In Florida, state agencies were prohibited from talking about global warming. What public records could you or should you preserve or safeguard right now?

This is not a call to partisanship. Some government officials will agree with many of the Trump administration’s policies, others may oppose specific ones. That is not the issue. True conservatives value separation of powers, balanced budgets, accountability, efficiency and neutrality of the bureaucracy and merit-based systems for recruitment and promotion. Both conservatives and liberals support the rule of law which is fundamental to our system of government. Government officials take an oath to defend the Constitution; our role includes protecting the right to vote, maintaining transparency and opposing censorship and corruption. The purpose of government is to address collective problems collectively, whether those problems stem from contagious diseases, floods and hurricanes or contamination of water and pollution of the air. Government must also protect the right to protest of citizens and public employees. Censoring news media and threatening opponents with prison or encouraging followers to do violence substitutes authoritarianism for democracy.

 It is time to decide, before your federal, state or local agency is called upon to enforce policies that contradict the principles of democratic governance and our federal system. Now is the time to decide what you will or will not do before you are required  to overreach intentionally limited governmental powers, to weaken the justice system, to violate the rights of minorities, women or the press. For those in military service, recall how in 2020 Trump attempted to deploy troops to suppress protests. Would you heed such a call today?

The decisions have to be made now, while there is still time to prepare.

---

Author: Irene S. Rubin is the author of Fighting Falsehoods: Suspicion, Analysis, and Response, and several other books on budgeting and qualitative research methods.

Author: Ernita Joaquin is a co-author of American Administrative Capacity: Decline, Decay, and Resilience.

(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...